|
Tacitus, Histories 1, 1-4 I propose to begin my work with the year when
Servius Galba was consul for the second time and Titus Vinius was his colleague. Many historians (auctores) have
dealt with the 820 years of the earlier period beginning with the foundation
of and the story of the with equal
eloquence and independence (libertas.) After the when the interests of peace were
served by the centralization of all
authority in the hands of one man, that literary genius fell idle. At the same time truth was
shattered under a variety of blows. Initially it was ignorance of
politics, which were no longer a citizen's
concern; later came the taste for flattery or, conversely, hatred of the
ruling house. So between malice on one side and
servility on the other the interests of posterity were
neglected. But historians find that flattery
soon incurs the stigma of slavishness and earns for them the contempt of
their readers, whereas people readily open their
ears to slander and envy, since malice gives the false
impression of independence. From Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, I have experienced nothing either
to my advantage or my hurt. I cannot deny that I owe the launching
of my career to Vespasian, or that I was advanced by Titus
and still further promoted by Domitian; but those who lay claim to
unbiased accuracy must speak of no man with either hatred or affection. I have reserved for my old age, if life is spared to me, the reigns (principatum) of
the deified Nerva and (imperium) of [the
Emperor] Trajan, which afford a richer and a safer
theme: for it is the rare fortune of
these days that you may think what you like and say what you think. 2 The story I now commence is rich in vicissitudes, grim with warfare, torn by civil strife, a tale of horror even during times of peace. Four emperors (principes) slain by the sword.
Three civil wars: often entwined with these, an even larger number of foreign wars. Successes in the East, disaster in the West,
disturbance in IlIyricum, disaffection in The conquest of the rising of the Sarmatian and Suebic tribes. of inflicting and receiving defeat at our hands, and a pretender claiming to be Nero almost deluded the Parthians also into declaring
war. Now too or disasters it had not witnessed for a long period
of years. Towns along the rich coast of were swallowed by the earth or buried from above. The city was devastated by fires, her most ancient temples were destroyed, and the Capitol itself was fired by Roman hands. Sacred rites were grossly profaned, and there was adultery among the great. The sea swarmed with exiles, and cliffs were red
with blood. Worse horrors reigned in the city. To be rich or well born, to hold office or refuse it, was a crime: merit of any kind meant certain ruin. Nor were the informers more hated for their crimes than for their prizes: some carried off a priesthood or the consulship as
their spoil, others won administrative office and a place at the heart of power: the hatred and fear they inspired worked universal
havoc. Slaves were bribed against their masters, freedmen against their patrons, and, if a man had no
enemies, he was ruined by his friends. 3 However, the period was not so utterly barren as to yield no examples of heroism. Mothers accompanied sons in flight, wives followed husbands into exile: one saw here a kinsman's courage and there a son-in-law's devotion: slaves obstinately faithful even on the rack: distinguished men bravely facing the utmost straits and matching in their end the famous deaths of older times. Besides these manifold disasters to mankind, there were portents in the sky and on the earth, thunderbolts and other premonitions of good and of evil, some doubtful, some obvious. Indeed, never has it been proved by such terrible
disasters to Rome or by such clear evidence that the gods are
concerned not with our peace of mind, but rather with vengeance. 4 Before I begin my task, it seems best to go back
and consider the state of affairs in the city, the temper of the armies, the condition of the
provinces, and to determine the
elements of strength and weakness in the different quarters
of the world. By this means we may see
not only the actual course of events, whose outcome is largely
governed by chance, but also why and how they
occurred. The death of Nero, after the first outburst of
joy with which it had been greeted, soon
had aroused conflicting feelings not only among the
senators, the people, and the soldiers in the
city, but also among all the
generals and their troops abroad. It had divulged a secret of
state (imperium): an emperor )princeps)
could be made elsewhere than at Rome. Still, the Senate was
overjoyed. They had immediately taken
advantage of their liberty to act under less
constraint before an absent new princeps (emperor.) The delight of the leading
knights (equites) fell little short of the Senate's. Respectable citizens who
were attached to the great families (houses), clients or freedmen who had
seen their patrons condemned or exiled, now revived their hopes. The base mob (plebs),
who had grown familiar with
the pleasures of the theatre and the circus, the most degraded of the slaves, and men who had squandered
their property and lived on Nero's
discreditable bounty, all were miserable and
greedy for news. |